Without being pedantic, buying a burrito is only evidence of buying a burrito. It has no relevance to the question of whether she had doped or not unless there was a reasonable inference that the burrito had resulted in accidental contamination. The likelihood of doping in those circumstances were deemed "near zero". So her consumption of a burrito was as relevant as her having a hamburger.
You are barking up the wrong goalpost.
The initial point was that the burrito was the only alternative presented with evidence to the CAS, in light of your argument that possibilities without evidence are pure fantasy.
The burrito that could not be produced as evidence was not evidence of anything except maybe she ate a burrito. It was 'a dog ate my homework' defence and got treated accordingly.
A banned substance in your system - which was unchallengeable fact - is evidence of doping to the highest degree of probability. You put it there, in your body, unless you can show otherwise. That is basic biology. That presumption can ONLY be dispelled by convincing evidence that its presence was not through any breach of the rules. She couldn't produce that evidence and neither can you. So CAS decided on the facts she had committed a breach - an intentional breach - for which there was no defence. Your "possibilities" amounted to nothing; the highly probable likelihood she had doped - which is the logical inference from a positive test - prevailed.
What you are saying is you cannot be specific or point to evidence that the CAS considered other "probable" alternatives.
That is just your inference which you suggest is both logical and highly probable, an inference not supported by the CAS or by any evidence.
How should I tell the difference between "possible" and "probable" when the probable option has yet to be established?
You are so thick. CAS does not have to consider other probabilities, the athletes tells them how she think the drug got into her system. And they available the probability of that happening and they found it to be near ZERO.
What you are saying is you cannot be specific or point to evidence that the CAS considered other "probable" alternatives.
That is just your inference which you suggest is both logical and highly probable, an inference not supported by the CAS or by any evidence.
How should I tell the difference between "possible" and "probable" when the probable option has yet to be established?
You are so thick. CAS does not have to consider other probabilities, the athletes tells them how she think the drug got into her system. And they available the probability of that happening and they found it to be near ZERO.
Typo: And they evaluate the probability of that happening and they found it to be ZERO.
A banned substance in your system - which was unchallengeable fact - is evidence of doping to the highest degree of probability. You put it there, in your body, unless you can show otherwise. That is basic biology. That presumption can ONLY be dispelled by convincing evidence that its presence was not through any breach of the rules. She couldn't produce that evidence and neither can you. So CAS decided on the facts she had committed a breach - an intentional breach - for which there was no defence. Your "possibilities" amounted to nothing; the highly probable likelihood she had doped - which is the logical inference from a positive test - prevailed.
What you are saying is you cannot be specific or point to evidence that the CAS considered other "probable" alternatives.
That is just your inference which you suggest is both logical and highly probable, an inference not supported by the CAS or by any evidence.
How should I tell the difference between "possible" and "probable" when the probable option has yet to be established?
There were not 'probable' alternatives to her having doped. After a confirmed test, it was not CAS's job to find them, but hers. She couldn't find any such alternatives - as you can't. If you are unable to see that a confirmed test for a banned drug prima facie establishes doping - and more than a mere possibility of that - you are more witless than I could have thought. It is why the rules confirm the athlete has doped unless they can show otherwise. In legal parlance, it is effectively evidence of self-incrimination that establishes a violation. But you can never accept that of a doper, even when it is confirmed and without an acceptable defence. You really have the doping disease in your veins.
You have the question around the wrong way. Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she.
We started by me saying that my goal was to evaluate the evidence.
You said CAS has already done that -- that would be for you to point me to that evidence you suggest the CAS evaluated.
So you can't answer my question. Of course you can't. There are no facts that will help you.
The only evidence CAS needed to uphold the violation was the confirmation of a banned drug in her system and that her excuse was dismissed as being of "near zero" likelihood. The analogy might be of catching someone with a smoking gun in their hand next to the body of the victim and they tell you they don't know how the gun got to be there. You cannot grasp what is 'probable'. You think a burrito pulled the trigger.
The only evidence CAS needed to uphold the violation was the confirmation of a banned drug in her system and that her excuse was dismissed as being of "near zero" likelihood. The analogy might be of catching someone with a smoking gun in their hand next to the body of the victim and they tell you they don't know how the gun got to be there. You cannot grasp what is 'probable'. You think a burrito pulled the trigger.
Read the rules.
It is strict liability only to uphold /or determine the violation. Why do you keep distorting.
What you are saying is you cannot be specific or point to evidence that the CAS considered other "probable" alternatives.
That is just your inference which you suggest is both logical and highly probable, an inference not supported by the CAS or by any evidence.
How should I tell the difference between "possible" and "probable" when the probable option has yet to be established?
There were not 'probable' alternatives to her having doped. After a confirmed test, it was not CAS's job to find them, but hers. She couldn't find any such alternatives - as you can't. If you are unable to see that a confirmed test for a banned drug prima facie establishes doping - and more than a mere possibility of that - you are more witless than I could have thought. It is why the rules confirm the athlete has doped unless they can show otherwise. In legal parlance, it is effectively evidence of self-incrimination that establishes a violation. But you can never accept that of a doper, even when it is confirmed and without an acceptable defence. You really have the doping disease in your veins.
Again and again and again you refuse to read the rule that says deemed only for the limited purposes of rule 10.
So you don’t read the rules and then you accuse those that do as having “ the doping disease in your veins”
Incredible that people are wasting dozens of hours of their lives discussing a topic that is not even controversial anymore.
Accusing those of a strict liability offence of having intent and thus causing all sorts of derogatory insults will continue to fascinate in the SH case and in many cases in the future.
What you are saying is you cannot be specific or point to evidence that the CAS considered other "probable" alternatives.
That is just your inference which you suggest is both logical and highly probable, an inference not supported by the CAS or by any evidence.
How should I tell the difference between "possible" and "probable" when the probable option has yet to be established?
You are so thick. CAS does not have to consider other probabilities, the athletes tells them how she think the drug got into her system. And they available the probability of that happening and they found it to be near ZERO.
I'm with you -- the CAS did not consider any other probabilities because they didn't have to. It was Armstronglivs who said the CAS differentiated "merely possible" from "what is probable".
The only evidence CAS needed to uphold the violation was the confirmation of a banned drug in her system and that her excuse was dismissed as being of "near zero" likelihood. The analogy might be of catching someone with a smoking gun in their hand next to the body of the victim and they tell you they don't know how the gun got to be there. You cannot grasp what is 'probable'. You think a burrito pulled the trigger.
Your analogy is broken.
The analogy is more like the police charging someone for involuntary manslaughter, while not having any evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or negligence, and the judge convicting the accused of 3rd degree murder unless the accused can establish non-intent, and there is no smoking gun or any weapon at all, and the accusation happens 1-2 months after the death, and the body is decayed, and the accused is not able to identify the murder weapon or cause of death, while the law strongly recommends identifying the murder weapon or cause of death in order to show non-intent, and it is up to the accused to become a forensics expert to be eligible for just involuntary manslaughter.
Then, later, I ask you what is the evidence for 3rd degree murder, and you lecture me that the law allows treating involuntary manslaughter as if it were 3rd degree murder.
I'm not disputing her guilt. She is guilty and her claims that it came from eating a burrito are absurd and have no merit.
The act of buying a burrito is evidence. I think she ever corroborated it with further evidence that she bought a burrito from a food truck.
Without being pedantic, buying a burrito is only evidence of buying a burrito. It has no relevance to the question of whether she had doped or not unless there was a reasonable inference that the burrito had resulted in accidental contamination. The likelihood of doping in those circumstances were deemed "near zero". So her consumption of a burrito was as relevant as her having a hamburger.
Whether the act of buying a burrito is considered relevant (and admissible) or irrelevant (and inadmissible) does not change the fact that buying a burrito is evidence. In this proceeding, it appears to have been relevant evidence -- Houlihan couldn't pursue her claim (which was eventually unsuccessfully) that she got unintentionally doped via a burrito unless she presented evidence that she ingested a burrito. That evidence could be as little as her saying "I ate a burrito once." That is evidence. But as I recall, she presented a bit more evidence on that, like naming the burrito company, listing the burrito company's menu, evidence of the day she ate the burrito, and even corroborating evidence of third parties who saw he purchase a burrito. All of that is evidence.
The only evidence CAS needed to uphold the violation was the confirmation of a banned drug in her system and that her excuse was dismissed as being of "near zero" likelihood. The analogy might be of catching someone with a smoking gun in their hand next to the body of the victim and they tell you they don't know how the gun got to be there. You cannot grasp what is 'probable'. You think a burrito pulled the trigger.
Your analogy is broken.
The analogy is more like the police charging someone for involuntary manslaughter, while not having any evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or negligence, and the judge convicting the accused of 3rd degree murder unless the accused can establish non-intent, and there is no smoking gun or any weapon at all, and the accusation happens 1-2 months after the death, and the body is decayed, and the accused is not able to identify the murder weapon or cause of death, while the law strongly recommends identifying the murder weapon or cause of death in order to show non-intent, and it is up to the accused to become a forensics expert to be eligible for just involuntary manslaughter.
Then, later, I ask you what is the evidence for 3rd degree murder, and you lecture me that the law allows treating involuntary manslaughter as if it were 3rd degree murder.
Re your last para.
This hits the point well.
Drug control in sport is done on the cheap; the Wada code says so much.
It would be too expensive to prosecute on beyond reasonable doubt with the variations of such as murder.
Cheap justice gives wrong justice.
If you want to accept cheap justice then you have to accept strict liability will catch those who have not cheated and you have no real way of determining who has cheated.
Without being pedantic, buying a burrito is only evidence of buying a burrito. It has no relevance to the question of whether she had doped or not unless there was a reasonable inference that the burrito had resulted in accidental contamination. The likelihood of doping in those circumstances were deemed "near zero". So her consumption of a burrito was as relevant as her having a hamburger.
Whether the act of buying a burrito is considered relevant (and admissible) or irrelevant (and inadmissible) does not change the fact that buying a burrito is evidence. In this proceeding, it appears to have been relevant evidence -- Houlihan couldn't pursue her claim (which was eventually unsuccessfully) that she got unintentionally doped via a burrito unless she presented evidence that she ingested a burrito. That evidence could be as little as her saying "I ate a burrito once." That is evidence. But as I recall, she presented a bit more evidence on that, like naming the burrito company, listing the burrito company's menu, evidence of the day she ate the burrito, and even corroborating evidence of third parties who saw he purchase a burrito. All of that is evidence.
We are differing over the meaning of the term "evidence". Evidence has to be supportive of what is claimed. Merely buying a burrito isn't; there is no necessary or even likely connection between consumption of a burrito and accidental contamination from a banned drug. That is what CAS heard, that the likelihood of her claim of contamination was "near zero". Evidence would have been a contaminated burrito. She didn't have it So she produced no evidence that actually supported her claim of food contamination. She may as well have said she bought an orange or a hamburger. So what.
The only evidence CAS needed to uphold the violation was the confirmation of a banned drug in her system and that her excuse was dismissed as being of "near zero" likelihood. The analogy might be of catching someone with a smoking gun in their hand next to the body of the victim and they tell you they don't know how the gun got to be there. You cannot grasp what is 'probable'. You think a burrito pulled the trigger.
Your analogy is broken.
The analogy is more like the police charging someone for involuntary manslaughter, while not having any evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or negligence, and the judge convicting the accused of 3rd degree murder unless the accused can establish non-intent, and there is no smoking gun or any weapon at all, and the accusation happens 1-2 months after the death, and the body is decayed, and the accused is not able to identify the murder weapon or cause of death, while the law strongly recommends identifying the murder weapon or cause of death in order to show non-intent, and it is up to the accused to become a forensics expert to be eligible for just involuntary manslaughter.
Then, later, I ask you what is the evidence for 3rd degree murder, and you lecture me that the law allows treating involuntary manslaughter as if it were 3rd degree murder.
I don't think I have read such contorted evasions of reality as you have just presented. Your avoidance has become comical. You have no understanding of the "smoking gun analogy", which is what a failed drug test equates to.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.